If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

As the article points out...that's the cost of keeping ANY President...not just Obama.
The British Royal Family does not travel to the extent of the President of the United States, therefore does not need a constant legion of security personnel. Seriously, how many times has the Queen been to America versus how many times a President has visited Europe?

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

In the conservative worldview, costs and spending don't matter until a Democrat is doing it. We've seen this over and over again. The cost of having a President is *now* a problem? The DEFICIT is NOW a problem? lol. Didn't hear that crap in 2004.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Maybe a better question to ask is how much did the last republican administration cost us, the American taxpayer?

Remember, they started with a budget surplus and then boom, budget deficits from the know-we-know-we-were-lied-to Iraq war, unfunded tax cuts, the mortgage crisis, etc. Where did the jobs go in the last four years of that administration? It took them two years to undue everything left to them and then six more years to pile on the massive debt.

Oh that's right, none of that mattered UNTIL a democratic and oh yeah the first black president took office, and then bam, he's blamed for everything. And you expect him to FIX everything you broke in four years, without any republican help the last two years. None. Nothing to help create jobs, improve the economy. Nada.

Funny how the election changed so much of this country's dynamic on so many levels. And watching the denial from the folks that just got their "arses" handed to them only proves how correct the voters got it. Stunning statistic from the election that still amazes me is that every democrat who ran for re-election on the national level was re-elected.

I'm tired of all the posturing and talk. Get busy Washington and work together and let's get America back to work. Resolve all this fiscal-cliff nonsense. Now.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

I'd like to know if this means Boehner will now be pushing for cost savings by dissolving the Presidency and rejoining the Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State.

Apparently she's a bargain! And the fiscal cliff is coming!

Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Originally Posted by MisterB

Maybe a better question to ask is how much did the last republican administration cost us, the American taxpayer?

Remember, they started with a budget surplus and then boom, budget deficits from the know-we-know-we-were-lied-to Iraq war, unfunded tax cuts, the mortgage crisis, etc. Where did the jobs go in the last four years of that administration? It took them two years to undue everything left to them and then six more years to pile on the massive debt.

Oh that's right, none of that mattered UNTIL a democratic and oh yeah the first black president took office, and then bam, he's blamed for everything. And you expect him to FIX everything you broke in four years, without any republican help the last two years. None. Nothing to help create jobs, improve the economy. Nada.

Funny how the election changed so much of this country's dynamic on so many levels. And watching the denial from the folks that just got their "arses" handed to them only proves how correct the voters got it. Stunning statistic from the election that still amazes me is that every democrat who ran for re-election on the national level was re-elected.

I'm tired of all the posturing and talk. Get busy Washington and work together and let's get America back to work. Resolve all this fiscal-cliff nonsense. Now.

I love you!!!!!

BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

OP asked for it with "THE OBAMA FAMILY COSTS" instead of "The office of the President costs.."

Well my criticism involves the lack of fact and figures here. I understand your reaction though. Can we get some kind of breakdown here comparing costs of the family versus the office of President? "Don't all rush to Wikipedia at once"....LOL

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Ohhh...4 more years huh and I hear only an actvof God could change that in the states. Impeachment rare indeed....

Interesting. Makes sense though. Thanks guys. New to this forum this time around so just getting to see who the "actors" are and what roles they play. "All of CEP a stage and the posters merely players" and all that...

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Royal Family: Travels for goodwill. State visits to Her realms are paid for by other countries.

President: travels to represent country, all paid for by US taxpayers.

Royal Family: subjects of adoration

Presidents: targets of assassins.

Royal Family: controls several lovely castles

President: controls nuclear warheads

Not really a comparison, now, is it?

A visit to a Realm is not a State Visit. State Visits are for foreigners. For example, she is the Queen of Canada. If she rules other countries in her spare time, that is her business. If she goes outside the Commonwealth Realms, the taxpayers foot the bill for the Realm on whose behalf she is travelling.

The Queen is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of at least one country with nuclear armaments, and can dismiss the Government.

She was once the bridesmaid of a cousin whose princely father was assassinated. And we all know that assassination of royalty can start a world war.

She's the real deal.

Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

So for all the Obama haters out there who are in need of another 'insider' book on why you should hate this man, his wife, his daughters and their dog...this is what the cover looks like.

Buy one for everyone in your family for Christmas or just wait for the shoutrage sound bites to dribble out of FOX, Breitbarf, Limbaugh and Drudge so that you can trot one excess after another to this forum in order to prove that Obama is the most evil president ever.

I would say though that one of the areas that cost a lot of money in the US is the Presidential plane. Who made the country so damned big, anyway. Why didn't they just leave it the same size as England....costs so much less to fly their Royalnesses around the postage sized island.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

And one of the curses of being President running for re-election is that you are required to take this plane.

But oh. The salacious 'inside' details.

Obama 'apparently' has 26 crew on board.

Including 5 chefs. 'Apparently'.

And the dog-walker, paid $102,000 per year and the dog were 'apparently' the only passengers on one flight.

I suspect that we'll find out that 'apparently' AF1 has been making secret trips back and forth to Kenya; I can't say because I haven't yet read the book or heard the reliable journalists at Fox and Fiends sputter in outrageous indignation yet.

Get ready to be regaled with this book as the author is out on his promotional tour in order to get one of his 'insider' tomes into every Republican's stocking this Christmas.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

And one of the curses of being President running for re-election is that you are required to take this plane.

But oh. The salacious 'inside' details.

Obama 'apparently' has 26 crew on board.

Including 5 chefs. 'Apparently'.

And the dog-walker, paid $102,000 per year and the dog were 'apparently' the only passengers on one flight.

I suspect that we'll find out that 'apparently' AF1 has been making secret trips back and forth to Kenya; I can't say because I haven't yet read the book or heard the reliable journalists at Fox and Fiends sputter in outrageous indignation yet.

Get ready to be regaled with this book as the author is out on his promotional tour in order to get one of his 'insider' tomes into every Republican's stocking this Christmas.

Here is/are the facts of the trip to Hawaii. It's too early to figure out which is appropriate.

So apparently the White House is doubling down on its coverup. They say Bo didn't go to Hawaii. They say Bo didn't fly back to Virginia the next day in order to stage a photo op with President Obama. They say Bo doesn't have his own private 747 to ferry him around the country. And they obviously used their well-honed Chicago thug tactics to force Scott Miscovich to recant. It's just like Darkness at Noon.

BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

In the conservative worldview, costs and spending don't matter until a Democrat is doing it. We've seen this over and over again. The cost of having a President is *now* a problem? The DEFICIT is NOW a problem? lol. Didn't hear that crap in 2004.

Re: Obama costs more than the royal family

In the 1992 book, The Power House by Susan B. Trento, "tells how Mr. Gray, after unabashedly peddling access for decades, reached the apex of his influence when his friend Ronald Reagan moved into the White House." [5] This book led to a defamation lawsuit by Gray against Trento and St. Martin's Press, in which Gray's claims were dismissed.[6]

The (book) has several claims worth fact-checking, including the idea that there are thirty-two "czars" now working in this Administration, a claim apparently inspired by Glen Beck's identical charge. Factcheck.org has debunked this as well as Politifact.

Michelle Obama's staff size also comes under scrutiny by Mr. Gray, who once again uses talk show host Glen Beck as his researcher. Back in February 2011, Beck claimed Michelle Obama had 43 staffers, compared to Nancy Reagan's 3. Once again, Politifact did some digging and found the claim to be inflated dramatically.

So you see people...the reason that this shocking claim didn't get much air time or attention during the election season is that it was, as I originally noted....full of reeking bullshit and the claims made couldn't even begin to stand exposure to fact checking.